Pages

Thursday, August 20, 2009

Knowing the mind of God

VICTOR REPPERT SAID:

“I have reached the conclusion that there are certain epistemological presuppositions held by Calvinists which have to be responded to if there is to be an effective critique of Calvinism that a Calvinist will take seriously.”

True.

“Calvinists typically begin with a kind of biblical positivism in which the inerrancy of Scripture is not only accepted, but is considered epistemologically fundamental.”

Well, let’s consider the issue at hand, shall we? Such as: Why is there evil in the world? What is God’s will for man? What is the afterlife like?

Now, what would be our best source of information or even our only source of information to answer these questions? Absent divine revelation, how could we begin to answer these questions?

Absent divine revelation, how could we know why God created a world containing evil? Absent divine revelation, how could we know God’s will for man? Absent divine revelation, how could we know what the afterlife is like?

These are questions that involve divine intent. We lack direct access to the mind of God. We can’t read his mind. If we are to know his intentions, he must disclose his intentions.

“The next step is to argue that the primary type of evidence relevant to the interpretation of texts of Scripture is of the grammatico-historical type. So if I say ‘this makes no sense, God could and surely should do it differently’ the primary objection is that the text says God did it that way, so ‘so much the worse for intuition.’ To object as I have done would be to present an a priori argument against Calvinism, not an exegetical argument.”

True.

“The next step is to produce reams of Calvinist exegesis of the relevant passages. This includes arguing that Calvinist texts (Eph. 1, Rom. 9) really do fully support Calvinism, and cannot be interpreted in any other way without doing violence to the meaning of the text. Anti-Calvinist texts I Pet 3:9, John 3:16, James 1:13, 2 Cor 5:15, etc.) can be reconciled with Calvinism without doing violence to the meaning of the text.”

True.

“At the same time I can come up with anti-Calvinist exegetes who say that the Calvinist texts don't support Calvinism, and the Calvinist interpretation of anti-Calvinist text really do undermine Calvinism.”

True. Same is true in debating a Jehovah’s Witness.

“The thing that is hard not to notice is that people like Moo, Schreiner and Carson on the Calvinist side, and Witherington and Hamilton on the Arminian side are all professional exegetes. However, so far as I can tell, none of us over here in the blogosphere is a professional exegete. How do you guys figure out who to trust, besides trusting exactly those people whose ideas support the theology you are already committed to?”

i) What makes you think trust has anything to do with it? Commentators present arguments for their interpretation. They also interact with opposing views. They try to point out the deficiencies of the rival interpretations.

We simply evaluate their respective arguments. A layman can often do that since it’s a question of logic. A man may be an expert in his field, but unless he’s a professional logician, he has no advantage over a layman so far as logical reasoning is concerned.

ii) Moreover, it’s not as if only Reformed exegetes defend interpretations consistent with Calvinism. I can cite non-Calvinists who, on this or that verse, offer an interpretation which is consistent with Calvinism.

“By the way, I do not appreciate how all the points of the post were ignored, except for the one line in the discussion that you thought you could ridicule.”

i) The statement I quoted is a textbook case of special pleading. I think it’s worthwhile to highlight special pleading, especially when a philosophy prof. is the culprit. When you, Reppert, indulge in special pleading, that means you’re losing the argument.

ii) You also mentioned Jn 3:16. I didn’t respond to that in my post because I didn’t wish to blur the focus of my post. However, I did respond to that appeal over at your own blog.

iii) You also said “I think it won't do to deny that God loves every person.” Since that’s an assertion in lieu of an argument, I’m under no obligation to rebut your assertion since you give me no reason to believe it in the first place. . It was deservedly ignored.

iv) You also compare exegesis to scientific inference. Unfortunately, that’s an argument from analogy minus the argument. Unless and until you furnish a supporting argument to show that science and hermeneutics are comparable, this is just another orphaned assertion.

“The purpose of this post was not to engage my arguments, but to discredit me.”

When you make a statement like, "For me, the Calvinist has the burden of proof. Why? I'm not a Calvinist. You've got to show me," that discredits you. It’s especially discreditable on the lips of a philosophy prof.

"For me, the Calvinist has the burden of proof. Why? I'm not a Calvinist. You've got to show me,"

Given that you malign this statement, are you saying that, as a Calvinist, it is not the Arminian who bears the burden of being persuasive argumentatively in conversation with you? You are a Calvinist. Are you saying you become a tabula rasa when entering every single conversation about theology?

John Piper says that I Pet 3:9 says that God wants everyone to be saved, which is of course consistent with Arminianism. He just doesn't draw the conclusion that God carries out his intention.

The statement I made which you attack was, in its proper context, a statement of something I hold generally, that person have the right to believe what they already do unless good evidence can be given otherwise. So there was no special pleading in this case, on any halfway charitable interpretation.

"John Piper says that I Pet 3:9 says that God wants everyone to be saved, which is of course consistent with Arminianism."

You seem to labor under the illusion that I accept a given interpretation just becomes it comes from a Calvinist, whereas I reject a contrary interpretation just because it comes from an Arminian (or other non-Calvinist).

The fact that a Calvinist like Piper interprets 2 Pet 3:9 a certain way doesn't mean I rubber-stamp his interpretation.

As a matter of fact, I prefer the interpretation offered by Bauckham, and he's no Calvinist.

"The statement I made which you attack was, in its proper context, a statement of something I hold generally, that person have the right to believe what they already do unless good evidence can be given otherwise. So there was no special pleading in this case, on any halfway charitable interpretation."

Of course it's special pleading. You don't apply that presumption to Calvinists. You constantly attack Calvinism and try to talk us out of what we believe. So you obviously don't treat Calvinism as a properly basic belief-system which enjoys prima facie warrant. To the contrary, you think Calvinists are unjustified in what they believe. Fine. But don't pretend that you're being even-handed about this.

Of course his statement of it seemed unilateral because the opening clause of the statement was "For me." So, perspectively, the statement is true given that he is saying with respect to his belief system that evidence against it is required to defeat his belief.

His statement does not imply that the inverse is not true. Rather, it implies it is true. Ergo, it would be true for you to say, "For me, the burden of proof is on the Arminian. Why? Because I'm not an Arminian. You have to show me."

This is a rather banal point that everyone accepts in practice anyway: that we believe our default positions until another view becomes, in our minds, more reasonable/better supported.

Indeed, he points out that this truth is bidirectional in his comment above. ". . .I hold generally, that person(s) have the right to believe what they already do unless good evidence can be given otherwise."

Obviously, he does not qualify you out of that statement. He affirms that any dialectic is evenly weighted. You just interpreted what he said uncharitably, which is quite easy to do in any case, and does nothing but obfuscate the actual content of your opponent's beliefs, which is extremely antithetical to useful argumentation.

"Of course his statement of it seemed unilateral because the opening clause of the statement was 'For me.' So, perspectively, the statement is true given that he is saying with respect to his belief system that evidence against it is required to defeat his belief."

Of course Jeffrey Dahmer's statement of it seemed unilateral because the opening clause of the statement was 'For me.' So, perspectively, the statement is true given that Dahmer is saying with respect to his belief system that evidence against it is required to defeat his belief.

"This is a rather banal point that everyone accepts in practice anyway: that we believe our default positions until another view becomes, in our minds, more reasonable/better supported."

Jeffrey Dahmer would appreciate your banal point.

"Indeed, he points out that this truth is bidirectional in his comment above..."

You have a problem with chronology. That was no part of his original statement. He only introduced that qualification after the fact, in response to my post.

"That was no part of his original statement. He only introduced that qualification after the fact, in response to my post."

You seem to accept the point here, and at least Victor is understood in the dialectic now. However, the word "introduced" is wrongly chosen, as, once again, the opening clause "for me" indicated that the following statement implied something about his perspective specifically. If you understand the meaning of that clause, it is implied that if the statement had instead started "for you," the statement either would have had a different following statement, or the same following statement, and I think it's only sensible to think that Victor would think the same statement would follow for you as well. (i.e. that for you, the Arminian must be persuasive.)

The most you could argue is that the statement was ambiguous (while it really wasn't), but even if that were the case, it should have prompted you to ask what it actually meant, rather than assuming that it meant something so arrantly false.

The fact that Dahmer actually engaged in cannibalism is irrelevant. I know Christians who see nothing wrong with cannibalism prima facie. To me, cannibalism being wrong seems to be an a priori belief. If not a priori, it at least has some sort of immediate moral grounding that renders it a wrong act in my mind. The statement then applies here. To persuade them it's wrong, I have to present reasons for them to think cannibalism is wrong given Christian assumptions, or by presenting things which would cause them to think that cannibalism is wrong. Likewise, if they want to argue for the permissibility of cannibalism, they have to reel me in from my position.

I don't see what the problem is. Sure, I think that they should have accepted the truth of the immorality of cannibalism in the first place, but too bad. Now that we're in this situation, we have to come up with operating principles which govern what beliefs to hold, and there's no reason to think that they should change or discard their beliefs for no reason at all. Each party plays an equal part in that situation as well.

(And as for Calvinism and Arminians is concerned, it seems resaonable people land on both sides of the issue from the get-go in the first place, so I don't really think there's any "starting advantage" as it were. There's no grotesque disparity between the reasonableness of the positions, as if one of the sides were akin to a Christian advocating abortion, or something similarly heinous.)

The deeper problem that many are not seeing is that Victor's claim is disingenuous. Victor has stated, on many occasions, that it is impossible to persuade him. He has said if Calvinism can be shown from the Bible then he'll just deny inerrancy. He's said that, with respect to philosophical arguments or defenses of Calvinism, that he has some basic intuitions about the world that he is unwilling to budge on and that are so basic for him that to show them wrong would be akin to showing e=mc2 wrong. It would overturn so much he takes for granted and that is presupposed in much of his thinking, that it's just inconceivable that he is wrong about those things. That's the real problem with what he's said. That and it halts rational debate since I can dig my heels in the ground and play the same trump card.